LexGOLAM HUSSAIN ALIAS GAMA versus THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA, AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 613 GOLAM HUSSAIN ALIAS GAMA l'. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA, AND OTHERS March 15, 1974 [H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] Mai11rena11ce of Internal Security Act, 1971-Ss. 3 (1) an:l 3 (2) • If detention af1er discharge in criminal -cases ma/a fide-Link between criminal activity and detention-Detention without duration if invalid-Public disorder-If acts aifned at a single person can disturb public order. Pursuant to an order of detention under s. 3 (l)(a) (ii) read withs. 3 (2) of the· Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 the petitionet' was arrested for hurling soda water bottles, brickbats and bombs indiscriminately on a group of persons on different dates. The order of detention said that if left free and unfettered the pe~· titioner was likely to continue to disturb maintenance of public disorder by acting in a similar manner. In an earlier criminal case the petitioner was discharged by the court since no witness dared to depose against him in open court. Thereafter the petitioner was detained under the Act. Jn a petition under Art. 32 it was contended : (I) that the detention was mala· fide because the petitioner was detained under the Act after his discharge by the court for want of evidence (2) that there had been a long interval of nine months between the criminal incidents and the detention order, (3) that the order of de- tention which did not specify a period was violative of s. 12 of the Act and (4) that the detention was founded on prevention of public disorder while the acts imputed to th~ petitioner v."ere aimed at a particular person, not the gen~ral pub- lic. Dismissing the petition, fIELD : Merely because the detaining authority had chosen to base the order of detention on.the discharge of the petitioner by the court for want of evi- dence it cannot be held that the order was bad in law. This branch of jurispru· dence, as interpreted by this Court, has made it futile for a detcnu to urge- that because the grounds of detention have been the subject matter of criminal cases which have ended in discharge, therefore, the order of detention was ma/a· fide. The basic imperative of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to the subjective satisfaction component of imprisonment for reasons of internal security. There may be extreme cases where the court had held a criminal case to· be false and the detaining authority with that judicial pronouncement before him· may not reasonably clain1 to be satisfied about prospective prejudicial activities based on what a court has found to be baseless. In the present case where the order of discharge was made purely for want of evidence on the scope that witnesses were too afraid to depose against a desperate character cannot come under the· exceptions carved out by the court to this category. [616C-FJ (2) It is true that there must be a live link between the grounds of criminal' activity alleged by the detaining authorit·Y and the purpose of detention. This credible chain is snapped if there is too long and unexplained an interval between· the offending acts and the order of detention. If the detaining authority takes the· chance of conviction and, when the court verdict goes against it, falls back on its detention pawcr to punish one whom the court would not convict, it is an abuse· and virtual nullification of the judicial proc.-ess. But if honestly finding a dan- gerou~ f?CCSOD ·getting away ~th if. by overawing wit_nesses or concealing the comm1ss1on cleverly, an authority thinks on the matenaJ before him that there is likelihood of and need to interdict public disorder at his instance he may validly direct detention. Jn the present case the acts were 'serious being bomb hurling and brickbat 'throwing in public places creating panic. involvement of the pe- tit~oner was ~is~~red ~nly during the investigation of the offences. No ground: C"x1sts for dtsm1ss1ng this statement as sham or factitious. [616G-H;617Cj 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 J 3 S.C.R. M. S. Khan v. C. C. Bose, A. I. R. 1972 S.C. 1670, Ashim Ku1nar v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2S6l and Sahib Singh Dugal v. Union of btdia, [1966] I S.C.R. 313, followed. . (3) The argument that detention without defined duration is ipso j:1r~ invalid cannot be sustained: No responsible government .should or would be irresponsive to the claim of citizen's freedom. (622FJ · Suna Ullah v, S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.